Ghislane Maxwell

newusername said:
While it may exonerate Prince Andrew of illegal behaviour with Virginia Giuffre, it could implicate him in other unsavoury &/or illegal activities.
If it was unsealed then journalists could runs stories on it and he'd then have to explain, "Virginia Giuffre is telling the truth about x, but not about y" which would be awkward.
Click to expand...

So it’s essentially akin to an admission of some guilt, about some things, on their part? They’ve asked to have it opened, then somehow found out the contents in the meantime and gone ‘nope.keep it the **** closed’.
That’s what I thought when I read the story but wasn’t sure if I’d missed something, as last time I’d read anything their whole end game argument seemed to be based on opening it.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying 👍
 
FabioPorkpie said:
So it’s essentially akin to an admission of some guilt, about some things, on their part? They’ve asked to have it opened, then somehow found out the contents in the meantime and gone ‘nope.keep it the **** closed’.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's what I thought too. He thought the documents would protect him, his lawyers read it and realised it would land him up the creak. So now he is going to try and convince to have it thrown out purely on heresay that Epsteins plea deal protects him.....that doesn't sound like a winning strategy
 
FabioPorkpie said:
So it’s essentially akin to an admission of some guilt, about some things, on their part? They’ve asked to have it opened, then somehow found out the contents in the meantime and gone ‘nope.keep it the **** closed’.
That’s what I thought when I read the story but wasn’t sure if I’d missed something, as last time I’d read anything their whole end game argument seemed to be based on opening it.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying 👍
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference between it being admitted as evidence & viewed by the court compared to being "opened" which would enable examination by the public and the contents then discussed.

As I said the contents may well exonerate him but is embarrassing, hence their attempt to keep it closed.
 
S7DiscoDown said:
I am sure so many famous people are bricking it about the FBI throwing her a deal for names etc.
Click to expand...
The judge for the trial has just been nominated by the Biden regime for the appeal courts. It's not confirmed of course, because then she'd have to recuse herself. But will she be confirmed to the role? Perhaps that will depend on what names crop up in the trial...

The scope of the trial is limited to certain accusers. Prince Andrews accuser is not one of those permitted for the trial or wasn't on November 25th anyway. My guess is none of the political elite will be exposed. Perhaps the odd celebrity will be thrown to the wolves.

As for Maxwell, she must know where a lot of bodies are buried (possibly literally). Daughter of a Mossad agent who ran money laundering schemes for the CIA, she acted as alleged madam for the rich and famous. I'm surprised she's still alive. There has to have been a deal made to keep her quiet. If not, it could get interesting.
 
br14 said:
The judge for the trial has just been nominated by the Biden regime for the appeal courts. It's not confirmed of course, because then she'd have to recuse herself.
Click to expand...
I don't see why she would have to recuse herself. Recusal is for situations where the judge has a conflict of interest or personal bias.

Being nominated as an appeals court judge doesn't create a conflict of interest or indicate bias as far as I'm aware.

In any event, the judge has already stated that she will see the trial through to its conclusion, regardless.

The judge, the lawyers and Ghislaine Maxwell
 
We know they knew Epstein. This was what Epstein and Maxwell did. It was part of Epstein’s method, to court the rich, famous and powerful, partly for cover and protection and probably partly to discover/entice them in to sharing his interest in young girls.

Having Bill Clinton on your plane, having photos of all these people on your walls or visiting is intimidating for young kids to go to the police and encouraging for the police to tread very lightly rather than kick up a fuss.

I expect some of these guests have indulged, but some won’t have, they were just used.

Let’s wait for specific evidence or testimony of indecent behaviour not just association.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top